Why Do The Ends Justify The Atomic Bombs?

Do the ends justify the means? In other words ‘does a good outcome excuses any wrong doings committed to attain it?’ The dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 was the method to end WWII in the Pacific. Although there is justification, the attacks did not definitively end the war. There were many alternative ways of ending the war, the best being through negotiation, or though a combination of conventional bombing and naval blockade. The US war strategy was cruel and the destruction it caused was even crueller, there was also a hidden motive to deter Russia (in order to stop communism). The atomic bombs have negatively impacted today’s society and the future of mankind. In some cases, the means does justify the ends,
This initiated America to declare war against Japan... four years later, in August, the war in the Pacific was on its last legs - the Allies, particularly the Americans, had regained the Japanese territories in Asia and only had the Japanese islands themselves to conquer. The island nation was being blockaded by US navy, were short of food, had few military resources left and was being constantly (conventionally) bombed by US planes, basically, they were becoming weaker by the day. The atomic bombs were used for a number of reasons; it was quick and no further US lives were lost which was pleasing to American citizens. It was also a way of seeking revenge and to assert their dominance over Japan and was the fastest way to end the war. The construction of the bomb (the Manhattan Project) was very expensive (costing $2 billion) therefore there was a desire to use the bomb legitimately, instead of trials. The A-bomb was a wild card because no one knew the extent of the damage or the effectiveness furthermore, there were alternative, safer ways to end the
Throughout 1945, American bombers had been hitting Japanese targets, especially Tokyo with fire bombs, which were commonly used because it set large fires to the Japanese wooden buildings. This method was more practical and conventional, less expensive and was relatively safe (for the Americans) because there were few Japanese fighter planes. More people died from these air raids than the atomic bombs, in March of 1945, 83,000 people died in a single attack - so why was it necessary strike and already weak nation? US General Arnold (in charge of war strategy) believed that “when there were no targets left, the war would be coming to a close” and by this point there were only a few targets left and by October there would be virtually none. Strategists believed that with a proper warning, the Japanese would surrender as a result of naval blockade causing an inability to import or export. To combat the vulnerable people suffering first, the blockade would be moderate and its only purpose was to put pressure on the. If managed correctly, this, with the combination of fire bombing, could’ve pressured Japan into surrender or resulted in a negotiation and ultimately, surrender. In retrospect, this would have the most appropriate way to end to end the war because it is most